Himachal Pradesh High Court

Gyar Singh vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 7 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7544 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.05.2025

Gyar Singh. ...Petitioner.

                               Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.                                            ...Respondents.

Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

the respondents.

2. Petitioner's grievance is to office order dated

28.04.2025, whereunder he has been transferred as Lecturer

(School-New) (English) against vacant post from GSSS Pota

Manal, District Sirmaur to GSSS Dibber, District Sirmaur.

The transfer has been assailed on the following grounds: -

2(i). It has been issued on the basis of a D.O. Note.

2(ii). As per transfer order, the petitioner is not entitled

to Transfer Travelling Allowance/Joining Time, but the

petitioner has never made any request for his transfer. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2(iii). The transfer is not in terms of applicable policy.

The petitioner had completed his normal tenure at his

present place of posting (GSSS Pota Manal, District Sirmaur),

which is a hard area under the transfer policy and without

taking option from the petitioner, he had been transferred to

GSSS Dibber, District Sirmaur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

transfer order has not been implemented qua the petitioner.

Neither anyone else has been posted at the place of the

petitioner nor he had been relieved from his present place of

posting at the time of filing the writ petition.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is

permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/

Competent Authority seeking his adjustment as per the

applicable policy, as he has completed his requisite tenure at

the present place of posting, whereafter, the competent

authority be directed to consider and decide the same in

accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. Learned

Additional Advocate is not averse to this prayer.

5. Looking to the nature of the grievance raised, this

writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to

prefer a representation to respondent No.2/competent

authority within three days from today. In case, such a

representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall

consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within

further period of two weeks. The order so passed shall also

be communicated to the petitioner.

Till the decision of the representation, the

impugned office order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) shall

not be implemented qua the petitioner. It is made clear that

in case petitioner fails to represent within the aforesaid

period, the aforesaid protection granted to the petitioner

shall stand automatically vacated.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.


                                                     Jyotsna Rewal Dua
7th May, 2025                                              Judge
     (Pardeep)